Dear England: Please take note of what Spain and Finland are doing with regards to considering internet access a desired utility, not France's silly nonsense of capitulating to the whims of an outdated oligopoly.

It would make more sense to refer to this queen as Queen Elizabeth II or Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, as opposed to "the Queen". There is more than one queen in the world and Ars is a US website, so it seems odd to label a specific queen as the Queen. It's like a Canadian website calling Obama "the president"--that wouldn't make sense either.

Why isn't internet service considered a utility yet? It's a basis for communication just like the telephone service.

To me, providing laws like this just makes it more unlikely it will ever be considered a utility, even though most things like video, phone, and other services are all moving to it at great speeds (no pun intended).

Also, what happens if copyright infringement occurs from a small business that is dependent on the internet service for basic operations? I know a lot of small businesses that can't afford IT for policy procedures and ensuring P2P and bittorrent applications are blocked/blacklisted from leaving the internal networks and they would instantly go under if their connection is dropped.

What about cafe's or other places that provides free wireless connections? Are they exempt or do they get cut off too?

I don't see how this will work. The people that pirate the most applications, music, etc. will simply move to using more secure connections or proxies to hide from being cut off, so it won't make much of a difference except to the normal Joe.

I certainly don't pirate, I mostly stopped to buy/watch/read/seek about any artistic tv/theater/novels stuff.

2 games bought in one year (it's too much expensive to buy all the games and it's sometimes too much cumbersome to use them).1 music album (a french artist)and okay : 2 blueray (two pixars)

and a gazillon of books and software about anything.

"What about cafe's or other places that provides free wireless connections? Are they exempt or do they get cut off too?"a french politician said it would be simple to cut them, block them, censor them with a State white list. Leftish deputee laughed when they heard that, _in_ the french parliement. of course, it was just crazy speak.

but yes, some people simply would love to just break internet, wifi, computer, all your stupid digital stuffs and life.

I'll tell you what I think and it is in the public domain for anyone to use. If your nation is too backwards to allow a public domain then I grant you an unlimited license to use in any manner you see fit with or without attribution.

I'm a privateer. I decided to become one recently. What sparked this decision is the fact that content industries are stealing from me. When copyright was first introduced it was for a period of fourteen years which allowed the creator time to make a profit off of their work even with primitive dissemination systems of the time. After that period it expired and entered the public domain where it would join other works in a rich mosaic for future works to draw from. This is dead. Over the years copyright terms have been extended to the point where there effectively is no public domain anymore. The content industry plays lip-service to the issue, they insist that there is a public domain but when every work is at least life of author plus seventy-five years or so there is in reality no public domain from my life's point of view. I will never see Alien (1979) enter the public domain. I will never see a new original movie based off that setting and characters. I will never see the iron grip of control loosened and in fact I'm sure content is planning more extensions to the terms. Government is complicit in this, politicians have accepted bribes, er.. campaign donations, in exchange for listening to these idiotic and greedy lobbies and passing the appropriate legislation right on cue like their training taught them. Even if magically there are no more extensions to copyright by the time current terms expire the works in question will be irrelevant. No one will be interested in them any more as their times have passed. This gutting of the copyright agreement between publishers and citizens has resulted in copyright not being copyright anymore: it is now a form of property and you will pay for every single last use. In response to this wholesale theft from me I have decided to liberate what I see fit. Go to hell content. I will take whatever I like as you are raping and pillaging through my cultural tapestry. The day I stop will be the day there is an actual agreement restored. I would be willing to settle for twenty years for a copyright term which is even more generous than the original fourteen. With a twenty year period I would also like to see as a punishment for twisting our heritage that only copyrights younger than ten years would be protected from the start. In another ten you'd be up to your twenty. Bite me content you're a parasite and you are stealing from me directly. Anything 1989 and older is a moral right to me and until you stop reneging on the social contract everything newer is as well. Content industries have stolen from me countless derivative works and from who would have been the creators of them innumerable dollars. It is vigilante justice: they have harmed the potential of so many things that could have contributed to my culture that I don't mind harming them back in the only thing that gets through their thick skulls: money.

This comment has been seeded on the isoHunt forums as well as slashdot. isoHunt is a specialized community well suited to developing this stance even though it got off to a rocky start there. slashdot, well, tons of people read slashdot and that community is generally receptive to the current wrongs in copyrights. Here are the links:

@Headkase,agreed with pretty much everything you said, and thats why i download all the songs/movies that i want - everyday. The only part I didnt agree with is dropping copyright till 20 years... The Swedish pirate party is trying/arguing for 5 years..., and I am one of the 7.2 percentage of voters that got them into the parliament.With today's distribution and production methods being so efficient, the original 14years term in itself is too long.

If the government can restrict my use of a network because I use it to infringe copyrights, then surely they can restrict my use of the postal network if I use it to distribute copyright infringing CDs.

European monarchs have a history of serious health problems due to congenital defects, and often could not to produce heirs.The accusation of "inbred" though crude, is accurate.

There are laws far more ancient than this that command rejection of the state prostituting itself with utterly corrupt organizations."And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.""With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.""And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."

Originally posted by Edward Teach:"And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.""With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.""And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."

The Queen of England has ceremonial power only. Pretty far from a dictator. "But, but, Royal Assent!" you say - yes but if it was done unpopularly against a vengeful government it could easily be the end of the monarchy.

Originally posted by bleeper:because they love their inbred dictators for some reason

Well done, that's the purest ignorance I've seen all day.

How is it ignorant the only real difference between a monarch and dictator is one is heridatory .

The point was that she has fuck all real power. She's the head of the government in name only and if she tried to force something through against Parliament's wishes, that'd be the end of the monarchy.

Originally posted by MGP2:I was under the impression that the one place the Queen NEVER entered, was the House of Commons. Any Britons out there to dispute/confirm that fact?

If I recall correctly it's a long standing tradition, due to Charles I arresting some MPs for treason there a few hundred years ago.

He tried to arrest them. the speaker of the house of commons (forgive me if i get the title wrong, am US) refused to tell the king where they hid.Also, they search the basements before the queen/king arrives in case guy fawkes tries to bomb parliament again.

See, our State of the Union address doesn't have that much tradition at all. The closest thing we have to any of the pomp is one or two people will state "Madam(Mister) Speaker, the President of the United States". Applause ensues, the President takes the stage and starts his speech. Not much doing there. Oh and the President['s staff] actually writes his speech, unlike another Leader i could mention. I think we should spice it up. I'm thinking a laser light show, some smoke machines and a bitcin' guitar solo by the Prez on the lectern. That would be awesome.

Originally posted by idealego:It would make more sense to refer to this queen as Queen Elizabeth II or Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, as opposed to "the Queen". There is more than one queen in the world...

Like there's only one 'The Times' and only one 'Royal Navy' there's only one queen worth worrying about and that's Mandy!

Originally posted by oomu:I certainly don't pirate, I mostly stopped to buy/watch/read/seek about any artistic tv/theater/novels stuff.

2 games bought in one year (it's too much expensive to buy all the games and it's sometimes too much cumbersome to use them).1 music album (a french artist)and okay : 2 blueray (two pixars)

and a gazillon of books and software about anything.

"What about cafe's or other places that provides free wireless connections? Are they exempt or do they get cut off too?"a french politician said it would be simple to cut them, block them, censor them with a State white list. Leftish deputee laughed when they heard that, _in_ the french parliement. of course, it was just crazy speak.

but yes, some people simply would love to just break internet, wifi, computer, all your stupid digital stuffs and life.

I think it's simple enough for a cafe, or even a melange of cafes, to set up an account by signing up with your ID. Also, it's simple enough to close off ports - even I know how to do that...

quote:

The point was that she has fuck all real power. She's the head of the government in name only and if she tried to force something through against Parliament's wishes, that'd be the end of the monarchy.

Not too bloody likely. An end to the UK, the commonwealth, and an 1100 year old tradition isn't likely to end easily. She's still incredibly powerful. Just because she hasn't exercised that power in a long time doesn't mean she doesn't have it.

Originally posted by mrsteveman1:Or they could just stop wasting everyones time and do something important. This isn't.

The UK is already a virtual police state, whatever their government does from now on can't possibly surprise anyone.

I totally agreed with you . the Internet disconnection bill is meaningless compare to others. I wonder why they want waste money and time for this bill when they already had something similar rule out there.

It's worth pointing out here that the Queen did not personally write this speech and may only have a very hazy idea of what file sharing is. She's essentially reading out what the government (i.e. the Cabinet, which consists of people appointed by the Prime Minister) have told her to say, she does not set policy and essentially rubber stamps what parliament sends her.

So although it's great fun to make fun of Brenda, it's Gordon Brown that you should be casting your ire at. As mentioned in the article it's unlikely that the Queen herself has an opinion on the matter.

MGP2:The Queen's speech is given in the house of lords, the unelected house of Parliament. She sends Black Rod (see the pic above) to fetch the elected officials from the house of Commons to hear her speech. There is a ritual that involves the commons refusing to let him in to show that they are independent from the monarch. The Queen does not set foot in the house of commons.

Why isn't internet service considered a utility yet? It's a basis for communication just like the telephone service.

To me, providing laws like this just makes it more unlikely it will ever be considered a utility, even though most things like video, phone, and other services are all moving to it at great speeds (no pun intended).

Also, what happens if copyright infringement occurs from a small business that is dependent on the internet service for basic operations? I know a lot of small businesses that can't afford IT for policy procedures and ensuring P2P and bittorrent applications are blocked/blacklisted from leaving the internal networks and they would instantly go under if their connection is dropped.

What about cafe's or other places that provides free wireless connections? Are they exempt or do they get cut off too?

I don't see how this will work. The people that pirate the most applications, music, etc. will simply move to using more secure connections or proxies to hide from being cut off, so it won't make much of a difference except to the normal Joe.

It's simple. Internet makes information flow easily and at virtually no cost. Information is the biggest danger to those in power. Is it than so surprising that they would do anything to limit it? Why do you think all the censorship and "terrorist speech" (defined as talk against the government) is being pushed in EU? It's not due to them not understanding the internet. It is exactly due to them understanding how dangerous it is to their power and position.

But sooner or later the revolution will come and than heads will roll. I prefer the peaceful way of getting change but if politicians force the violence so be it. I don't care about lives of people who are prepared to transform the society to a police state just to guard their power.

Originally posted by www.eZee.se:"Though it sounds like something straight out of the 1570s, this is pomp and circumstance, 21st century style."And just as relevant as the queen of England.

This old biddy knows as much about the internet as my goldfish.. but unfortunately has more power than my goldfish.

In this day and age its just crazy.

Wrong, and wrong.

Firstly, by all accounts the Queen is extremely hard working, sharp and well informed. She's been using the internet herself since 2006, and even visited Google's London office in 2008. I suspect she has a pretty good grasp of the issues around internet piracy.

Secondly, although she has lots of theoretical power, in practice she is unable to wield it herself, and instead is really a proxy for the prime minister. The beauty of the system is that there is a lot which is unclear and done by convention and precedent only. If the prime minister were to go insane and start using the armed forces against the general population, or attempt to declare war against an otherwise friendly nation I suspect the Queen could dismiss him and call new elections, and the armed forces swear allegiance to her, not the prime minister.

Personally, I would tend to trust her to rule wisely out of a sense of duty more, at least for a short time, than politicians who do it for personal gain.

Well what used to be a slightly funny tradition of a tradition loving nation in 20th century have become completely ridiculous farce in 21st.

I mean the person saying "Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament" is either completely insane or lying. Either is not a good option. An old lady reading prime minister's speech pretending she is a "sovereign" and wearing ridiculous clothes... Coaches... Even the crown has to be taken like a theater prop and returned after the spectacle is over.

Come on Brits, do the honorable thing. Send the old lady home to spend the rest of her days in peace and declare a republic. These farcical ceremonies are simply disgraceful.

A nation with a future doesn't endlessly re-enact its forgotten past. It makes its future. You probably won't have any unless you wake up and do it soon. (and no I don't think your former breakaway colony has any future either)

The way I always understood it was that that every year, the Queen meets the PM and tells him/her a direction to pursue that she's interested in. i.e. reducing crime, better health care, etc.

I believe the PM is under no legal obligation to agree, but it's better if he/she does.

quote:

Originally posted by idealego:It would make more sense to refer to this queen as Queen Elizabeth II or Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, as opposed to "the Queen". There is more than one queen in the world...